Category: Police

  • Decepticon cop; the other side

    Decepticon cop; the other side

    Decepticon Cop

    We got an email yesterday from Russell Matson, the lawyer representing the fellow who was arrested for impersonating a police officer a few weeks back. Russell wants you to know that his client wasn’t impersonating a law enforcement officer;

    My client was issued a criminal citation and will appear at a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing on Thursday, Sept 4 in Quincy District Court. The clerk will hear the facts and determine whether there is enough evidence to open a formal criminal complaint on a charge of Impersonating a Police Officer.

    I believe the facts will show that my client did nothing that meets the criteria for this charge.

    At no point did he represent himself as a police officer.

    At no point did he attempt to pull anyone over.

    My client does not and has never carried a gun or a badge, or dressed as a police officer.

    The car itself, while certainly distinctive, did not have any blue lights like an actual police car. Despite decoration that make it look similar to a police car, it does not bear any official town or state seal of any police department.

    The statute for impersonating a police officer MGL Chapter 268 Section 33 states that a person must “acts as such or requires a person to aid or assist him in a matter pertaining to the duty of such officer”.

    My client did none of these things.

    I’m thinking that right about now the arresting officer is feeling a bit of regret about this whole thing.

  • Why Those Damned Masks?

    Why Those Damned Masks?

    police balaclava

    Among the many disturbing trends we are faced with in the introductory decades of this new century is one that leaves me, as a former proud warrior in service to the United States of America, cold to my core. What the hell is going on with the warrior class around the world when the folks they protect can no longer see their faces? Compare photos from previous wars and what is going on now; in those 40’s pics we don’t see our military personnel wearing obscuring balaclavas or scarf wraps. Nope, those men and women who fought the biggest war in the history of this planet shoved their mugs right up there in a defiant, “Get this, photog!”

    Today it’s not just our military forces covering up but our police forces and that’s where my concern becomes more than just apprehension, it begins to speak to me in a small voice in the back of my mind that America is, without even considering the consequences, surrendering a key aspect of its liberty in allowing those who police us to become faceless enforcers, cloaked in both physical and political anonymity so that any means of policing those police becomes terribly problematic, if not impossible.

    I have previously expressed my opposition to the alarming militarization of our domestic police forces, in particular their expanding use of heavily-armed and extremely aggressive SWAT teams for what was formerly the job of a single police officer, carrying only his sidearm, the much desired duty of serving warrants that went to those officers in favor. It was considered a cushy gig, almost entirely free of the risks of normal patrolling. Now doors are kicked in and rooms are swarmed by screaming men tossing flash grenades, men as heavily armed as any in our military, domestic copies of real soldiers who actually do engage in truly deadly house to house urban warfare where the enemy is equally well-armed and dangerous.

    But serving a warrant? Working a civil protest? C’mon, guys, we who have been there and done that in terms of armed combat can’t help but be unamused by young, gung-ho police officers who feel the need to inject this level of combativeness and authority, with all its deadly consequences, into policing the quiet communities where we reside. And this business of hiding your faces instills absolutely no confidence in the populace you police. If you truly represent what is right and lawful in our society then why the need to hide your faces?

    I know, the standard response is fear of retaliation. Well why don’t you substantiate that fear for us by going back through the history of policing in this country and point out to us all the instances of retaliation against a police officer and/or his family because he carried out his duties as a sworn officer? No doubt there are some, but my bet is that they are damned few because any potential retaliators full well understand that if they harm or kill a police officer, or particularly his family, they are marked, by every law enforcement agency from coast to coast, for obliteration: the lesson being, you don’t ever screw with cops or their loved ones

    OK, I understand we live in an era of anonymous terrorism; can we please not make the situation worse by cloaking our cops in anonymity so that they further build the level of unease in whom we, the populace, are to believe and trust actually are operating for our benefit?

    The recent upheaval in Ferguson, Missouri, has served at least one good purpose and that is that Americans are not happy with the storm trooper image of local police we were treated to in the television coverage. Millions of Americans are asking “Why all the damned combat uniforms and gear?” Why armored military vehicles when we’re only dealing with angry citizens who have absolutely no way of ever taking on an armored vehicle? And last but not least:

    Why those damned masks?

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Pet Dinosaur killed, Student arrested

    WCSC form South Carolina reports That Alex Stone was  suspended for completing a creative writing assignment.   Now as Paul Harvey would have said “The rest of the Story”

    Alex was given a writing assignment on his first day back at school to  write Facebook post based in the future about an event. So he wrote the he killed his neighbors pet dinosaur in one post,  then he wrote that he bought a gun to “take care of business”.

    He could have used a better choice of words,  But the school contacted the police, Alex had his person and his locker searched. Alex got upset and got arrested.

    Attorney David Aylor, who is representing 16-year-old Alex Stone, said his client’s arrest over a creative writing assignment on Tuesday was “completely absurd,” and is seeking to appeal the suspension and “proceed with the legal issues of [Stone’s] arrest.”

    “This is a perfect example of ‘political correctness’ that has exceeded the boundaries of common sense,” Aylor said in a statement released on Thursday.”Students were asked to write about themselves and a creative Facebook status update – just days into the new school year – and my client was arrested and suspended after a school assignment.”

    The School and Police have a different version

    “The information that is being reported is grossly incorrect in reference to what led to the juvenile being charged,” said Capt. Jon Rogers in a Summeville police statement released on Thursday.”The charges do not stem from anything involving a dinosaur or writing assignment, but the student’s conduct.”

    I know a new High School freshman that has to read and write about “To Kill a Mockingbird” I guess she just needs to turn in a copy of the 5th amendment instead.

  • Just What Is an Unarmed Man?

    Much of black America and the liberal media are making a huge issue of the Ferguson shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. We are being treated to endless live reports of rioting and looting, some of them detailing inflows of black and leftist agitators from around the country to keep the Ferguson opportunity hot and in full media focus. All of this comes out of a neighborhood shooting where, if the parties involved had their races reversed, the incident would have been merely local.

    But what amazes me is the justification for all this upheaval: that a white police officer shot an unarmed black youth. I’m a white man who many decades ago was a military policeman – one who had frequent encounters with unarmed young black soldiers who all too frequently vigorously resisted arrest. Except that they weren’t unarmed for the simple reason that they were young and strong and possessed quick fighting reflexes honed on the hard streets where they were raised. Quite often they were larger than me or my partner, who also quite often was black – not that this racial relationship often meant anything at all to the perps we were trying to detain. And once detained, their usual fate was that we took them back to Fort Campbell and released them in the parking lots of their barracks without filing charges. It was not our mission to bring young soldiers more grief; the lives of enlisted soldiers were already hard enough back in the late ’50s. What we did try to do was to save them from their own bad actions.

    But occasionally we did come upon a subject whose size and aggressive militancy required stronger measures, such as the judicious application of a nightstick. In those situations, did I ever fear for my life? Damned straight I did. Facing a much larger man, both in height and weight, who is determined not to be detained, you are praying that he’ll come to his senses and submit to arrest. Your gun is there at your side, but that is the last thing you want to introduce into such an encounter. But – and that is a very large but – that call is his.

    And that is where I have tried to place myself in that officer’s situation in Ferguson.

    The officer has a seriously damaged eye from a very hard, crushing shot from a very large fist. That indicates that the perp in this situation had the opportunity to throw at least one clearly damaging punch at the officer and effectively connect before the officer even could exit his vehicle. The severity of the damage to the officer’s eye and cheekbone indicates what could be expected from a sucker-punch from a 6’4” almost 300-pound assailant. And because I’ve been there and done that as a young man, there lies my problem with this media meme of the assailant being unarmed. The shoulders and arms of a 6’4” 300-pound man driving a large clinched fist render that fist a lethal weapon. Ask anyone who’s ever been on the receiving end of one. People are regularly beaten to death all around the world by such fists. Add to that the widespread availability of martial arts training in today’s society, and you can never be sure that any human you go up against doesn’t possess the ability to kill you with his bare hands, regardless of size.

    And that, folks, constitutes a deadly threat against one’s person, which in most states nowadays justifies a deadly, defensive counter-response, whether you be a civilian or a law enforcement officer. Confronted by such a threat from any person – black white, brown, whatever – I’m going to defend myself with whatever means I have. If that means is a handgun, then I will discharge that handgun into that large oncoming mass, and I will continue to discharge that handgun until that large threatening mass is no longer oncoming and is very decidedly unthreatening. If that means dead, so be it, no matter how many times his family assures me he was a “good boy.”

    Now, I ask you, what is not commonsense about that?

    So, those of you so quick to condemn this Ferguson police officer for shooting an unarmed man might want to put yourselves in that scenario and wonder just what you might do with an exceptionally large, very angry, violently threatening man charging toward you with unknown intentions – plus the certain ability, by virtue of his size, to do you grave injury, even to beat you to death with nothing more than his large, hard fists.

    Again I ask: just what is an unarmed man?

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Bayonets? Really?

    Bayonets? Really?

    Bayonet charge

    There has been a lot of talk about the militarization of the law enforcement community and we’ve been talking about it here for years. There’s an article on Stars & Stripes today about it and they cataloged some of the items that police departments have bought, since the article came from the Detroit Free Press originally, they focus on Michigan;

    A Free Press review of items transferred from the military since 2006 shows Michigan law enforcement agencies have received 17 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or MRAPs, built to counter roadside bombs; 1,795 M16 rifles, the U.S. military’s combat weapon of choice; 696 M14 rifles; 530 bayonet and scabbards; 165 utility trucks; 32 12-gauge, riot-type shotguns; nine grenade launchers; and three observation helicopters.

    The part that got me, though, was bayonets. What in the name of all that is good are they doing with bayonets? I know it’s probably the cheapest thing on their list, but did anyone really think about it? I’ve never used a bayonet on a person in combat, but I’ve thought about it a lot. I own a few bayonets, but just to complete a rifle, from a collector’s standpoint – and I adhere to the “Spirit of the Bayonet”. It’s a last resort weapon, and probably the most terrifying to use, from both the viewpoint of the guy trying to use it as well as the fellow on the receiving end.

    It takes a lot of training to use a bayonet, but since there’s no noise or big explosion, I’m guessing not too many police departments spend much time training with it. But I’m concerned that some police units out there thought that having a few hundred bayonets in their inventory would be a good idea.

    I know that the original rifles had bayonets as it’s primary function – a pike that also occasionally fired a bullet – but I can’t think of any situation in which a police department would tell it’s officers to “fix bayonets” like they are the 20th Maine on Little Round Top.

    If they decide to begin divesting themselves of some of that equipment, I’ll take an M14 off their hands. I’ve always wanted one of those. There are no Garands on the list, but I’d like one of those, too. But I have just enough bayonets, thank you.

  • Sergeant Darren Wilson, St Louis PD

    On edit: I guess they’re not the same guy, see that’s why we don’t let you folks put people’s names and addresses on the blog.

    So, I just watched the Ferguson Police Chief announce the name of the officer involved in the Ferguson, MO shooting of Michael Brown. Sergeant Darren Wilson is the name and this comes up on a Google search in an unrelated article;

    The Ethical Society of Police, which represents African-American police officers, issued a letter to its members Tuesday, pledging to meet with African-American police commanders within the next week to express concerns about the lack of diversity among high-ranking officers in south patrol.

    The group’s president, Sgt. Darren Wilson, said the highest-ranking black officer in the south patrol is a lieutenant. Wilson said a lack of minority commanders may have created an environment where someone felt comfortable enough to put a racist letter to an officer in a public mailbox.

    So, since it’s an organization of black police officers, and Darren Wilson is the president of the organization, I’m guessing Darren Wilson is black himself. Maybe I’m naive about these things, but what’s the whole Al Sharpton thing about?

    On edit: I guess they’re not the same guy, see that’s why we don’t let you folks put people’s names and addresses on the blog.

  • The militarized police discussion

    The militarized police discussion

    elian-gonzalez

    When I saw the footage of Federal officers who came to take Elián González back to Cuba in April, 2000, I got a sick feeling in my stomach. Some were wearing balaclavas to hide their faces and other were dressed like the fellow in photograph above – helmets, goggles, tacti-cool vests and submachine guns (I never understood the gloves without finger tips thing – never). For a six-year-old boy and the unarmed folks who were taking care of him. Many of my friends in the law enforcement community defended the military-like attire, saying that the law enforcement climate had changed, but I just didn’t see the need.

    At the time, I lived in Washington, DC and many of the Metro police were prowling the city in military Battle Dress Uniform-style clothes and bloused combat boots – you know – even though they never got out of their patrol vehicles. I thought it was a bit much.

    We’ve written several times in the last few years about police departments who seemed to be arming up for a war. They were scooping up MRAPs and scary black guns (that they now call “patrol rifles” except when you or I own them – then they’re “assault rifles”). Some police officers in the media defended buying the military gear by telling the public that veterans coming back from the war presented a greater threat to police departments, even though they couldn’t point at any specific incidents of veterans setting up IEDs or ambushes on the police departments any where in the country.

    But, now that the Ferguson Police Department in Missouri are demonstrating their recent purchases, everyone is upset;

    Ferguson Police

    Comments I’ve read from veterans of the recent wars indicate that the Ferguson Police are carrying more gear than they ever carried when they went outside the wire in Iraq or Afghanistan. I get the feeling like they’re in some sort of military fashion show. But anyway, when the police defended their purchases with the threat of veterans, no one said anything. But now that the police are dressing up to confront non-veterans, it’s a big deal. The Hill reports that Congressman Hank Johnson (the “Guam is tipping over” guy) is involved in writing legislation to get the police under control;

    “Our main streets should be a place for business, families, and relaxation, not tanks and M16s,” Johnson wrote in a Dear Colleague letter sent Thursday to other members of Congress.

    “As the tragedy in Missouri unfolds, one thing is clear. Our local police are becoming militarized,” Johnson’s office said in a statement.

    Johnson said he will introduce the bill in September, when Congress returns from a five-week recess. He has been worked on the legislation for months, but his office said the current situation highlights the need for the bill.

    Yeah, when the specter of Timothy McVeigh justified the police departments’ shopping spree, it was fine, but now, it’s all on display for controlling regular citizens, somehow it needs to brought under legislation. It’s up to local voters to stop the proliferation of military-style police forces, not Congress, by the way. Local voters will hold their police forces to account, Congress writes a bill and forgets about it.

    I support the idea that every policeman should go home to his/her family after every shift, but this type of stuff doesn’t inspire confidence in the general population. They don’t look like they’re trying to protect us – they look like the police I’ve seen in third world countries who brutalize the population into submission.

  • Fanning the Flames in Ferguson

    Fanning the Flames in Ferguson

    ferguson-missouri-riots

    Chief Tango sends us a link from USAToday entitled “Pentagon fueled Ferguson confrontation” an opinion piece by David Mastio and Kelsey Rupp. It’s subtitled “Department of Defense provided surplus military vehicles to local PD” the gist of the article is that the police in Ferguson have been armed by the Pentagon for their confrontation with looters and rioters there.

    Michelle McCaskill, media relations chief at the Defense Logistics Agency, confirms that the Ferguson Police Department is part of a federal program called 1033 that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars of surplus military equipment to civilian police forces across the United States. The materials range from small items, such as pistols and automatic rifles, to heavy armored vehicles such as the MRAPs used in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    “In 2013 alone, $449,309,003.71 worth of property was transferred to law enforcement,” the agency’s website states.

    According to McCaskill, the most recent transfer of military equipment from the Department of Defense to small Ferguson was in November and included two vehicles as well as a trailer and a generator. Details on the vehicles and their intended uses have not been released by the Pentagon. Information on any prior transfers is also unavailable.

    So, it sounds like the police are waging a war on rioters, doesn’t it? You’d expect photos of tanks rolling through the streets crushing dissent. Well, this vacuous piece of journalism, if you bother to read the whole thing, says;

    There is no evidence that any such equipment has yet been used in the Brown case and its aftermath. But such “police militarization” is just one element of an often toxic relationship between minority communities and local police.

    The whole story revolves around the fact that police department HAS the equipment, not that they’re USING the equipment. Now, I’m one of the first to question why the civil police need this equipment – it’s needless expenditures purchased only for county fair displays and so the police can appear “tacti-cool”. But it’s irresponsible of journalists to write these kinds of articles which are clearly written for low-information readers who wave the article like a bloody shirt in social media and fan the flames of the civil war in Ferguson.

    It’s the media that is “fueling the confrontation” in this case, not the Pentagon.